4 ms·

> defend itself from state-funded hackers Doesn't it matter which state? Sure, for US, Russia, China this is probably just true without nuance. For someplac

by biztos 5y ago

> defend itself from state-funded hackers Doesn't it matter which state? Sure, for US, Russia, China this is probably just true without nuance. For someplace like Israel (small but highly motivated and strong in both espionage and tech) apparently also true. But should I not expect a FAANG-level company to defend itself from state-sponsored hacking if the state is Uzbekistan or Cambodia? And if every state can get access to top-tier hacking by having an alliance with $MAJOR_PLAYER, why should we expect that doesn't extend to non-state actors? At which point, are we just giving up on security? I think Apple absolutely can defend itself against state-funded hackers. Whether they choose to do so is a question of priorities I guess.

fortran77 5y ago
NSO is not Israel. They are a small private company, based in Israel, owned by a UK private equity group. This isn’t a ‘state sponsored’ anything.
- biztos 5y ago
  I agree, in the same way that Raytheon is "not America," but my interpretation of the parent comment was that the cosy relationship with the government made it effectively the same thing from the point of view of companies defending themselves. Whether or not that's actually the case is an interesting discussion.
j16sdiz 5y ago
I am not so sure... State can use selective enforcement of different regulations to strongarm companies doing crazy stuffs..
- biztos 5y ago
  Granted, a state actor can (depending how important the state is to your business) compel you to not counter their attacks. But that isn’t really a question of technology, and the parent comment was, I think, suggesting it’s an unrealistic expectation on the tech level for companies to beat back state actors.
saagarjha 5y ago
> But should I not expect a FAANG-level company to defend itself from state-sponsored hacking if the state is Uzbekistan or Cambodia? NSO’s elevator pitch is giving top-tier capabilities to states that can’t develop them in house.
- biztos 5y ago
  Which is precisely why I asked the other question: > why should we expect that doesn't extend to non-state actors?

by biztos 5y ago

fortran77 5y ago

NSO is not Israel. They are a small private company, based in Israel, owned by a UK private equity group. This isn’t a ‘state sponsored’ anything.

biztos 5y ago
I agree, in the same way that Raytheon is "not America," but my interpretation of the parent comment was that the cosy relationship with the government made it effectively the same thing from the point of view of companies defending themselves. Whether or not that's actually the case is an interesting discussion.

j16sdiz 5y ago

I am not so sure... State can use selective enforcement of different regulations to strongarm companies doing crazy stuffs..

biztos 5y ago
Granted, a state actor can (depending how important the state is to your business) compel you to not counter their attacks. But that isn’t really a question of technology, and the parent comment was, I think, suggesting it’s an unrealistic expectation on the tech level for companies to beat back state actors.

saagarjha 5y ago

> But should I not expect a FAANG-level company to defend itself from state-sponsored hacking if the state is Uzbekistan or Cambodia? NSO’s elevator pitch is giving top-tier capabilities to states that can’t develop them in house.

biztos 5y ago
Which is precisely why I asked the other question: > why should we expect that doesn't extend to non-state actors?